The key institutions in society such as the police, the legislative branch and the media form the society's Integrity System. These key institutions can prevent corruption in a country and are called pillars within the National Integrity System Assessment. This assessment has been developed by Transparency International and evaluates the key institutions and practices in the governance system of a country. The pillars used for the evaluation are ones that are connected to the country's internal corruption risks but also ones connected to the country's contribution to fighting corruption in society on a larger scale. Transparency International identifies the strengths and weaknesses within a specific country's Integrity System and locates areas for reform which are then turned into recommendations towards a brighter future. [1]
Transparency International compiles a report based on their assessment of a country and its pillars, which is then published and can be found on their website www.transparency.org.[2]
Commonly used pillars
The National Integrity System Assessment is often based on the pillars mentioned below:
Executive branch of government
Legislative branch of government
Public sector
Electoral management body
Law enforcement
Judiciary
Audit institution
Anti-corruption agencies
Political parties
Ombudsman
Media
Civil society
Business
Each pillar's formal framework is examined and assessed as well as its functionality in practice. Even if only one of the pillars is unstable it means that corruption could, not only occur, but grow in the country. If all the pillars are in good condition corruption is under control according to the National Integrity System Assessment.[3]
Critique
Dr Brown and Dr Uhr (2004) criticize the system of pillars used in the assessment in their article Integrity Systems: Conceiving, Describing, Assessing. According to them the pillars and the way they are used in the assessment provide a view that is too one-dimensional when the reality is much more multifaceted. Brown and Uhr also question if the recommendations and goals set by the assessment are ones that match the capacity of the different institutions in different countries. If they do not the problem of whether the goals can be achieved in reality becomes an issue. [4]
Some critique against specific reports and the applicability of the system to certain countries have also surfaced. For example a study on the National Integrity Systems of small Pacific Island States criticized the assessment for not working as well as it should on a small scale. The reason behind this critique was that it was found that some consistent patterns between the different islands could have to do with the small size of the islands, both geographically and in terms of population, since this smallness can increase the risk of certain kinds of corruption. [5]
Finnish context
In 2012 Transparency International performed a National Integrity System Assessment on Finland, it can be found in it's entirety on the Transparency International website. The assessment covers 13 different pillars and brings up a few areas of weakness that are in need of improvement, these areas can be found within the media, the legalistic tradition, transparency and accountability, cooperation between officials, the relationship between citizens and the government and use of resources. More specifically the weakness pertaining to the media for example is that Finland has very little investigative journalism even though the media technically can function freely. Among citizens Finland is usually considered to be a transparent country but the assessment raises the question of how accessible information really is to the citizens. On a more positive note, the pillars that are not mentioned as ones in need of improvement such as the judiciary for example are considered as strong and well functioning [6]
GRECO, the Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption has also performed a thorough evaluation in four parts on corruption in Finland which has its similarities in conclusions to that of the National Integrity System Assessment on Finland. [7]
Transparency International has local branches all over the world, including Finland. Transparency Finland was founded in 2003 and aims to support and participate in work against corruption as well as provide education on the topic of different kinds of corruption and how to prevent them. [8]
^ Transparency International, National Integrity System Assessment (2014), Available at www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
^ Transparency International, National Integrity System Assessment (2014), Available at www.transparency.org/whatwedo/nis
^ Dr A. J. Brown and Dr John Uhr (2004): Integrity Systems: Conceiving, Describing, Assessing, University of Adelaide
^ Peter Larmour and manuhuia Barcham (2005): National Integrity Systems in small Pacific island states, Asia Pacific School of Economics and Government
Introduction
Table of Contents
Transparency International compiles a report based on their assessment of a country and its pillars, which is then published and can be found on their website www.transparency.org.[2]
Commonly used pillars
The National Integrity System Assessment is often based on the pillars mentioned below:Each pillar's formal framework is examined and assessed as well as its functionality in practice. Even if only one of the pillars is unstable it means that corruption could, not only occur, but grow in the country. If all the pillars are in good condition corruption is under control according to the National Integrity System Assessment.[3]
Critique
Dr Brown and Dr Uhr (2004) criticize the system of pillars used in the assessment in their article Integrity Systems: Conceiving, Describing, Assessing. According to them the pillars and the way they are used in the assessment provide a view that is too one-dimensional when the reality is much more multifaceted. Brown and Uhr also question if the recommendations and goals set by the assessment are ones that match the capacity of the different institutions in different countries. If they do not the problem of whether the goals can be achieved in reality becomes an issue. [4]Some critique against specific reports and the applicability of the system to certain countries have also surfaced. For example a study on the National Integrity Systems of small Pacific Island States criticized the assessment for not working as well as it should on a small scale. The reason behind this critique was that it was found that some consistent patterns between the different islands could have to do with the small size of the islands, both geographically and in terms of population, since this smallness can increase the risk of certain kinds of corruption. [5]
Finnish context
In 2012 Transparency International performed a National Integrity System Assessment on Finland, it can be found in it's entirety on the Transparency International website. The assessment covers 13 different pillars and brings up a few areas of weakness that are in need of improvement, these areas can be found within the media, the legalistic tradition, transparency and accountability, cooperation between officials, the relationship between citizens and the government and use of resources. More specifically the weakness pertaining to the media for example is that Finland has very little investigative journalism even though the media technically can function freely. Among citizens Finland is usually considered to be a transparent country but the assessment raises the question of how accessible information really is to the citizens. On a more positive note, the pillars that are not mentioned as ones in need of improvement such as the judiciary for example are considered as strong and well functioning [6]GRECO, the Council of Europe's Group of States Against Corruption has also performed a thorough evaluation in four parts on corruption in Finland which has its similarities in conclusions to that of the National Integrity System Assessment on Finland. [7]
Transparency International has local branches all over the world, including Finland. Transparency Finland was founded in 2003 and aims to support and participate in work against corruption as well as provide education on the topic of different kinds of corruption and how to prevent them. [8]
http://www.transparency.org/files/content/nis/NIS_Background_Methodology_EN.pdf